The other two guys are back at the shop building mechanical arms?

Yes, but only if they have the skills to build the mechanical arms. This goes back to Spinaker's comment. Pretty soon a robot will be building the mechanical arms and the only survivors will be those programming and maintaining the robot. Once another machine learns that other robots will likely be put out of work. Then we have robots going on food stamps and welfare.

Ron

 

This has been going on all through the history of humanity.
What became of the blacksmiths, cartwrights, candle makers, telephone exchange operators, keypunch operators, etc., etc.?

Workers will always be displaced by new, disruptive technology.

The image I am trying to convey, taken to the ultimate goal at some point in the future, there will be a tiny percentage of the population who will live a life of "privileged entitlement" and the rest of the world are there to serve them.

 

there will be a tiny percentage of the population who would will live a life of "privileged entitlement" and the rest of the world are there to serve them

Personally, I'm more optimistic than that ... I believe there will always be people with more power and resources than others. The problem is their perpetuation in power. Regardless of politics, communists always form dynasties, and capitalists build monopolies ... they're both fundamentally oligarchies, and I like neither because they always end up suffocating progress for everyone else.

 

Even robots will be out of work eventually.

 

The image I am trying to convey, taken to the ultimate goal at some point in the future, there will be a tiny percentage of the population who would will live a life of "privileged entitlement" and the rest of the world are there to serve them.

I agree to a point but I am also a little more optimistic and tend to agree with:

Personally, I'm more optimistic than that ... I believe there will always be people with more power and resources than others. The problem is their perpetuation in power. Regardless of politics, communists always form dynasties, and capitalists build monopolies ... they're both fundamentally oligarchies, and I like neither because they always end up suffocating progress for everyone else.

This is my more serious thinking on the subject which until now I have kept light with tongue in cheek. While I have concerns for my children and grandchildren my own time remaining may or may not see any of the change and at my age I am not about to overly worry about it.

Ron

 

Even robots will be out of work eventually.

Just showed this to my 21 year old boy ... he smiled and said "That guy should apply for a job in Bollywood" ... LOL!

 

What companies want is fewer people on their payroll per % of profit. Fewer people being employed or with any income equals less spending and most of the wealth becomes in the hands of few.

AI will increase growth at least for a short while but the ruling class only need to spend so much per day to get by that the wheels of the economy can't handle the decrease in spending.

And then there's the banking and trading...

The troubling part I see is that majority of people will be gutted like a fish whilst the few will only get a dent in their Bentley...

This is very much simplified however we should brace ourselves for 2020 if not before that because our business model crashes ever so often like clockwork.

Only matter of time.

 

I think AI will replace tasks, but not jobs and careers. Can’t automation occur on a task-by-task basis? And maybe, AI can take over the dangerous or boring tasks, while the higher-level tasks can be assigned to people.

https://hackernoon.com/5-reasons-ai-wont-replace-humans-it-will-make-us-superhuman-413c499e1e68

 

I think AI will replace tasks, but not jobs and careers. Can’t automation occur on a task-by-task basis? And maybe, AI can take over the dangerous or boring tasks, while the higher-level tasks can be assigned to people.

https://hackernoon.com/5-reasons-ai-wont-replace-humans-it-will-make-us-superhuman-413c499e1e68

Actually I am pretty sure that at the beginning AI will be too expensive to do the dangerous jobs. Who is more expendable - the expensive techology or a human being that can be replaced at pretty much no cost?

I have a hard time understanding the superhuman concept... For anyone who knows history, you know where it got us before.

"Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?"

I fear that we are on the path of nihilism, without any morality to guide us

p.s sorry this was a bit more than intended, but winter is upon us

 

Something I stressed to my kids was always remain ahead of the curve. You can expect to be paid by your worth to an employer. Be the person who is needed when the AI throws up. Be the indispensable one.

Someone few weeks back suggested that with AI's disruption, not everybody will be able to find a job and keep up the pace since not everybody is qualified to do so.
I wish you were there to reply. This is a great attitude. We were shit scared when computers were introduced, look where we are today.
People are too skeptical and create a fuss about job loss, I agree its a major concern, but I also insist that we build our education system around this, and try and generate more valuable pupil and work force.

 

Actually I am pretty sure that at the beginning AI will be too expensive to do the dangerous jobs. Who is more expendable - the expensive techology or a human being that can be replaced at pretty much no cost?

A very simple example of AI's usage in hazardous conditions would be using automated drones in wildfires. Now someone might come up and say the pilot lost his job because AI took over his work. But we also need someone to maneuver the drone, there will be an entire industry working on building, marketing, maintaining it. Its just perception I believe.

 

Now someone might come up and say the pilot lost his job because AI took over his work. But we also need someone to maneuver the drone, there will be an entire industry working on building, marketing, maintaining it. Its just perception I believe.

There is still someone flying the drone. Just because they are not in the right seat there is still a pilot on the ground flying the thing and there is still a ground crew and support. Just as you mentioned.

Ron

 

There is still someone flying the drone. Just because they are not in the right seat there is still a pilot on the ground flying the thing and there is still a ground crew and support. Just as you mentioned.

Ron

Right. It amazes me sometimes, how can we shut ourselves to an amazing technology because it looks disruptive? Ofcourse its disruptive, I mean the way we have been functioning over centuries has to change at some point and yes it could be dangerous too. But now that we know its implications, what stopping from making robust systems and regulations to keep it in check?

 

It all depends on attitude and how it is presented. To some, any change is "disruptive".

Back in old American....they called it progress.

We were once known by it. And proud of it. Progress used to be our purpose.

Our academics and many politicians now believe progress must be tightly controlled and throttled. Our progress must be approved by the elite. For our safety of course.

You really shouldn't worry about AI's disruption. It will probably turn out like graphene....or the segway.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/opinion/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning.html

As someone who has worked in A.I. for decades, I’ve witnessed the failure of similar predictions of imminent human-level A.I., and I’m certain these latest forecasts will fall short as well. The challenge of creating humanlike intelligence in machines remains greatly underestimated. Today’s A.I. systems sorely lack the essence of human intelligence: understanding the situations we experience, being able to grasp their meaning. The mathematician and philosopher Gian-Carlo Rota famously asked, “I wonder whether or when A.I. will ever crash the barrier of meaning.” To me, this is still the most important question.
...
These potential vulnerabilities illustrate the ways in which current progress in A.I. is stymied by the barrier of meaning. Anyone who works with A.I. systems knows that behind the facade of humanlike visual abilities, linguistic fluency and game-playing prowess, these programs do not — in any humanlike way — understand the inputs they process or the outputs they produce. The lack of such understanding renders these programs susceptible to unexpected errors and undetectable attacks.

What would be required to surmount this barrier, to give machines the ability to more deeply understand the situations they face, rather than have them rely on shallow features? To find the answer, we need to look to the study of human cognition.
...
A.I. programs that lack common sense and other key aspects of human understanding are increasingly being deployed for real-world applications. While some people are worried about “superintelligent” A.I., the most dangerous aspect of A.I. systems is that we will trust them too much and give them too much autonomy while not being fully aware of their limitations. As the A.I. researcher Pedro Domingos noted in his book “The Master Algorithm,” “People worry that computers will get too smart and take over the world, but the real problem is that they’re too stupid and they’ve already taken over the world.”

 

I should have made my self a bit clearer the other day but I had just woken up having a bad case of the flu hence the short post. Well now I'm home after a 15 hour shift yesterday and then the next day a 12 hour shift so I might probably make a bit more sense now .

It's not the AI that is any shape or form going to outsmart us that is the problem( let alone become sentient(I might need to clarify a bit there. AI that has become self aware isn't a machine nor a program anymore but a living thing. Because being self aware isn't logical it's sense and no amount of different types of emulating sensors can make a machine go HOLY COW THAT BLOODY HURTS or OH! YEAH I'M GOING TO DO THAT AGAIN!!!)) (Well that's why we invented science fiction I guess)

It's the dumb AI/ automation that is going to hit a lot of people hard in very little time. Which might tilt the economy even further. When the crew needed to produce X amount of goods becomes smaller and smaller. fewer people will have jobs. The biggest expense in any company(well at least that's what their go to move is every time a pay increase is mentioned) is paying their workers. So you can see that every bit of downsizing that doesn't hurt the quality or productivity companies will look into. I'm pretty sure every large company has at least one guy whose only job is just that. Others follow suit and it will only get more severe.

Don't get me wrong I understand the motives and I like AI and automation ideas because they can solve so many problems and have fascinating creative thinking behind them. However I just know that at some point we will have to seriously think about the economical, environmental and sociological consequences those problem-solvers will bring, and not just the short time gain.

There is going to be some real creative self employed job-titles in the future so we got that going for us.

 

I saw an AI newscaster this morning. Not a bad job of creating an android. The ‘tireless’ artificial news readers simulate the voice, facial movements, and gestures of real-life broadcasters. So as news anchors head to the unemployment lines I figure the guys making this AI news anchor work will have employment.

Ron

 

I saw an AI newscaster this morning. Not a bad job of creating an android. The ‘tireless’ artificial news readers simulate the voice, facial movements, and gestures of real-life broadcasters. So as news anchors head to the unemployment lines I figure the guys making this AI news anchor work will have employment.

Ron

I, for one, welcome our news anchor overlords.

“We are an important advocate for peace in cyberspace and a guardian of order,” said Huang Kunming, head of Communist Party’s propaganda department, speaking at the event. “China stands ready to safeguard the sound order of cyberspace.”

 

It all depends on attitude and how it is presented. To some, any change is "disruptive".
Back in old American....they called it progress.
We were once known by it. And proud of it. Progress used to be our purpose.
Our academics and many politicians now believe progress must be tightly controlled and throttled. Our progress must be approved by the elite. For our safety of course.

I agree. Its disruptive because it opposes/challenges someone's idea of profit or control. Its become a mad house. We question how technology can help us do better but never question the ones controlling us.

 

I agree. Its disruptive because it opposes/challenges someone's idea of profit or control. Its become a mad house. We question how technology can help us do better but never question the ones controlling us.

I'm sure once the bugs are worked out the disruptions to our daily lives will be minimal.